It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush vs Gay Rights

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 09:59 PM
Bush is supporting a bill that states marrige is between a man and a woman. I'm sorry, but just because he is a republican meat puppet, doesn't mean he can tell people who they can and can't love. Who, not just Bush, but anyone has the power to tell people who they have to love? NO ONE! You can't tell a man he has to love a woman and vice versa, this is America, land of the #ing free! Freedom of speech, religon, and in my views, freedom to love whoever a person wants to love.

What is so wrong with gay and lesbian marriges? Sure, christians say it wrong, but well, eating meet on a friday is wrong according to them, so I'll let them go.

Main arguement is well, what next? animals? incest? But why do they ask that? What does two people who love each other enough they want to make the ultimate commitmint(sp?) have to do with incest and dogs? That a whole other story. Besides, last I saw, straight couple's aren't doing that well with a 51-53% divorce rate.

My freind Amber loves Rae(full name Rachael) and is planning on going to Vermont to get married for it legal there. But if Bush and the other rich white heterosexual christian males(republican for short) get their way, she won't be able to marry Rae. Why? Hell, they been together longer than 28% of marriges that occur today. 4 years, both finally 18, love each very much, yet have to go to Vermont to get married. Why?

I don't know, republicans just like to tell the poor, nonwhite, female, gay, non christian, or democratic what they can't do since they are not republican. Fight Bush, vote Dean, Kerry, Gore, Bill Gates, whoever, just not Bush and other corrupt politicians.(republican for short)

posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 10:14 PM
Doesn't matter if they get married or not. States do not have to recognize the union unless they live in Vermont.

As far as it being a religious debate, well sure, it is.

Marriage is a religious institution, although it has been recognized by the federal government.

Rights and priviledge are two different things, but of course the "victims" don't seem to get that.

If you want to make up another word and create something different, by all means, have at it.

They SHOULD be looking for governmental recognition as a legal entity. Anything other than that is outside of what they should get.

Equal rights is fine with me, and most religious folks too.

But they are not looking for equal rights. All the pro-gay marriage people are saying that we want to impose our beliefs on others.

Hell people, we didn't bring this up, you did. Who wants to FORCE people to overlook their beliefs so a few can get more than their share.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:03 AM
KJ, which religion does the institution of marriage belong to?

The biggest problem I have with the entire debate, is all of the anti-people keep on pointing to marriage being a union of a man and a woman. No, marriage is the union between two souls who are in love. Whenever you start defining marriage without love in the equation, it becomes something of the old family arranged marriages.

I agree with some type of civil unions, for the legal issues of taxes and inheritance. Also, for insurance benefits and Social Security (like we will ever see it). But, anywho, that is $0.02

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 05:57 AM
As noted so many times, this nation was founded upon the Judeo-Christian belief, and in that belief God gave us marriage. In that same belief, homosexuality is an abomination, and it has been unacceptable behavior across the globe for how long?

Homosexuals do not have rights in the fact that they are homosexuals. They have rights IAW being humans. But they do not have a right to enter into a marriage, two people of the same sex.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 10:30 AM
TC, I have found there is a whole lot of stuff in the bible that is not followed, but it is "an abomination" in the eyes of God.

Every society, that I have seen/read about has some form of marriage. To say it belongs to religion is stupid. I do not fully agree with the gay marriage, but I at least would love to see some type of civil unions as I stated above.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 10:35 AM

Loving someone and marrying him following the catholic tradition are 2 different things.

I prefered homosexuals people when they weren't seeking so much visibility.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:18 AM
It does not belong to one religion, but in the sense we are talking about, it belongs to the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Gays are not looking for equal rights because they do not understand what they are getting.

They say no to civil unions, but that is all they are entitled to under the government.

Being married gives no more "rights" than to a civil union could, only the term.

Think about two ideas.

1) Gay marriage was allowed. Now try to change the law, even slightly. You would have the gay vs. religious battle all over again further dividing the already divisive environment we enjoy today.

2) Civil unions were recognized for gays. Try to change the law, even slightly. No debate.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:23 AM
The real debate is under Article IV of the Constitution which says that states have to treat equally citizens of different states. So when a couple (heterosexual) get's married, that marriage is recognized by all other states, they have to under Article IV; however, some states do not recognize a legal marriage between homosexuals, if a couple (homosexual) get's married in Vermont and then goes to a state where that type of marriage is not allowed, then the state does not recognize this, even though they legally have too. It's almost just coincidence that gay marriage was what brought up this debate, it could of been any other conflict.

The religious fact is only compounding the problem, it's not the central conflict though.

Personally, I don't care, I think that if two people love each other then they should be able to marry just as any other couple would.

[Edited on 2/17/2004 by Bowser]

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:24 AM
They do not have to recognize things that are in direct conflict to their states constitution. At least that's my understanding of it. If I'm wrong, show me how.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:32 AM
Yah but they still have to treat citizens equally. This is the debate that I'm talking about.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:40 AM
They may be treating them equally. I'm pretty sure that if someone has a gun that is permitted in Virginia and moves to Michigan where it isn't, it would not be legal to have it.

Bad example, but you get my drift.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:22 PM
That's the debate. Another example would be someone who has a driver's license from florida and drives to georgia is still allowed to drive in georgia based on the florida license. It's the same type of thing.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:41 PM
I agree with you on this, but this issue is much more offensive than a simple drivers license.

That is why I think federal involvement might be easier to solve the problem than to have it fought between states.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:48 PM
To those that think gay people are acting up, or trying to get visibility...

Well, what if you were born into a world where 95% of people were homosexual. You may even be born into a world where you must hide who you are to stay accepted, perhaps even to stay alive. You see people around you joining in a special bond, being happy, you wonder why that cannot be you. What if you finally get the courage to tell who you are, maybe are even fortunate enough to find a partner. Then when you try to get married they say you are acting up? How would you feel?

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:04 PM
What if slaves were white.

What if we illegally crossed the border to get into Mexico.

What if anyone cared?

You act as if being gay is like being a child molester in prison.

If that is true, what makes them getting married going to change anything?

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:23 PM
It will allow them to have an equal chance to enter into that special bond that some of them care about a lot. At the very least it will make some of them very happy, and give hope for others that someday they will be more accepted. The path to acceptance is not having little private treehouses like marriage for certain orientations, throwing rocks at those who are not allowed in.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:46 PM
Marriage is ours, not theirs.

They can have the rights, but not marriage itself.'

They can love, like all people, with or without the recognition.

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 02:22 PM
You really are incapable of going into another persons shoes. I guess you would be content with just having to date another girl in the 95% homosexual world, never being able to make that permanent connection. Instead people say you lead a slutty lifestyle, then they deny you a choice to try and make it 'better' with marriage.

Now you are doing just what I said, building a little treehouse and acting like a big baby saying marriage is yours not theirs. It is just a bond, no one owns it, and hopefully equality shall prevail allowing all to enter in this bond, who wish to.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 03:27 PM
Um, under article 4, the states have to treat the citizens the same, can't discriminate. So denying gays the right to marry is discrimination, for straight couples can. Only excuse is that they gay, but Article 4 doesn't say treat the citizens the same, unless they gay, then persecute the hell out of them.

Another thing, KJ, what the #? It's ours, not theirs? What are they? Aliens from planet X? And who is treating them like child molestors? Why is it offensive? Is love offensive to you?

posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 04:11 PM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Um, under article 4, the states have to treat the citizens the same, can't discriminate. So denying gays the right to marry is discrimination, for straight couples can. Only excuse is that they gay, but Article 4 doesn't say treat the citizens the same, unless they gay, then persecute the hell out of them.

Another thing, KJ, what the #? It's ours, not theirs? What are they? Aliens from planet X? And who is treating them like child molestors? Why is it offensive? Is love offensive to you?

The child molester thing was in reference to someone else saying the gays fear for their lives.

Getting married is not a right much like getting a drivers licence is also not a right.

It is a government recognized union.

Do I give a rat's ass if they love each other? No, go have a nice day and love til you fall over. I'm not going to tell you how to live.

I also am not saying deny them the rights the come from marriage asshat.

I am saying that it would be out of the question for this to happen. Most people are religious in this country. 86% to be more precise.

Let's shun them and their beliefs because of the fake drive for "rights"

Take the rights, no one cares. They are only interested in it not being "marriage".

Call it a civil union, call it a domestic partner. Who cares, but not marriage.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in